2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-5-2008 

# K eys v . D ept of Ju s t ice P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1683

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Keys v . D ept of Jus t ic e " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 712. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/712NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N os . 07- 1683 & 07- 4573

___________ D A RR EN K EY S, A ppel l ant

v. DEP ARTM ENT OF J UST I CE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 06- cv- 2837 ( H o n o r a b l e R o b e r tF . K e l l y)

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t1, 2008 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, H A R D IM A N and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t5, 2008)

_________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_________ P E R C U R I A M. D arr en K ey s , a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus on the bas i s of i m pr oper ven ue. W e w i l l vacate and rem and for further proceedings.2 I. A tal l r el evantt i m es , K ey s w as i m pr i s oned i n a fe der al fac i l i t yl ocat ed w i t hi n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. I n J une 2006, he fi l ed w hathe ca pt i oned as a pet i t i on fora w r i tof m andamus unde r28 U . S. C . § 1361 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. K ey s al l eges t hatD epart m entof J us t i ce ( “D O J ”) per s onnel , i n r et al i at i on forpr i orl i t i gat i on, fal s el ychar ged hi m w i t h at t empt i ng t o es cape fr om pr i s on. H e s oughta w r i tof m andamus c om pel l i ng D O J per s onnel t o aff or d hi m due pr oces s dur i ng t he di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ng. H e then fi l ed thr ee otherdocument s s eeki ng var i ous r el at ed r el i ef. I n t he l as tof thes e, he al l eged thatdi s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs al r eady had bee n r es ol ved aga i ns thi m , t hatD O J per s onnel had deni ed hi m due pr oces s i n s ever al r es pect s , and thathi s good- t i m e cr edi t s s houl d be r es t or ed and hi s di s ci pl i narychar ge e x p u n g e d . T a k e n to g e th e r, K e y s’s f ili n g s m a ylib e ra llyb e c o n stru e d to re q u e st re lief in th e n a tu re o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s re lief

o r re lief p o ten tiallya v a ilab le u n d e r B iv e n s v . S ix U n n am ed A g en ts of

the F ed era l B u rea u o f N arc o ti cs, 40 3 U . S . 3 8 8 (19 7 1 ). T he D O J m oved t o di s m i s s t he pet i t i on, ar gui ng, i nt eral i a, t hatvenue i n t he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a w as i m pr operunder28 U . S. C . § 1391( e) . U ndert hat s ect i on, venue i n ci vi l act i ons agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es and i t s empl oy ees l i es , i nt eral i a, i n anyj udi ci al di s t r i ctw her e the pl ai nt i ff r es i des . T he D O J ar gued thatK ey s s houl d be deemed t o r es i de i n B al t i m or e, M ary l and, w her e he r es i ded bef or e hi s i ncar cer at i on. T he D O J at t ache d a dec l ar at i on bya D O J empl oy ee l i s t i ng B al t i m or e as K ey s ’ s l egal3

r es i dence and r el eas e des t i nat i on. I n r es pons e, K ey s fi l ed a doc um entent i t l ed “C ondi t i onal A cce pt ance and D emand: ‘ Pr oof of Cl ai m . ’ ” I n t hatdocument , he demanded “pr oof of c l ai m ” thathe had notbeen mar r i ed t o a Phi l adel phi a r es i denton A pr i l 4, 2004, and had notes t abl i s hed r es i dence i n Phi l adel phi a, befor e hi s curr ent i ncar cer at i on. B yor derent er ed J anuary17, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on for i m pr opervenue. T he courts t at ed thatK ey s r es i des i n B al t i m or e butdi d notacknow l edge hi s appar entcont ent i on t hathe r es i des i n Phi l adel phi a. K ey s t i m el ym oved for r econs i der at i on, s peci fi cal l yas s er t i ng t hathi s r es i dence i s on t he 6200 bl ock of C al l ow hi l l St r eeti n Phi l adel phi a, and thata pr obat i on offi cerScot tSm i t h had appr oved hi s r eques tt o m ove ther e fr om B al t i m or e fol l ow i ng r el eas e fr om a pr evi ous t erm of i m pr i s onm ent . K ey s al s o ar gued thatt he D i s t r i ctC our ts houl d have tr ans ferr ed the ac t i on under28 U . S. C . § 1406( a) i ns t ead of di s m i s s i ng i t . B yor derent er ed February14, 2007, t he D i stri ctC ou rtden i ed the m oti on . T he D i stri ctC ou rton ce aga i n d i d n ot address K ey s ’ s as s er t i ons r egar di ng hi s r es i dence i n Phi l adel phi a, and w i t h r es pectt o hi s t r ans fer r e q u e s ts t a t e d me r e l yt h a t“ [ a ] f t e rc o n s i d e r i n g t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e P e t i t i o n i twa s my det erm i nat i on t hati tw oul d notbe i n t he i nt er es tof j us t i ce t o t r ans fert hi s cas e t o another di s t r i ct . ” K ey s fi l ed a not i ce of appea l , w hi ch w as docket ed as C . A . N o. 07- 1683. K e y s a lso f

iled a se c o n d m o tio n f

o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , atta c h in g C o u rt o f A p p e a ls corr es pondence addr es s ed t o hi m at6225 C al l ow hi l l St r eeti n Phi l adel phi a and a copyofW e w i l l c on s t rue K e y s ’ s fi r s tmot i on fo rr e c on s i de r a t i on a s on e un de rFe d. R. Ci v. P. 1 59 ( e ) a nd hi s t hi r d a nd fi na l mot i on fo rr e c on s i de r a t i on a s on e un de rFe d. R. Ci v. P. 60( b) . T hus , t he or der s underr evi ew ar e ( 1) t he J anuary17 or derdeny i ng hi s pet i t i on, b ro u g h t u p f

o r re v iew b yK e y s’s a p p e a l f ro m (2 ) th e F e b ru a ry1 4 o rd e r d e n y in g h is R u le 5 9 ( e ) m o t i o n , a n d ( 3 ) t h e N o v e m b e r2 0 o r d e rd e n yi n g h i s R u l e 6 0 ( b ) m o t i o n . K e ys pr evi ous l yfi l ed i n C . A . N o. 07- 1683 a “mot i on forcl ar i fi cat i on and/ ors t ayand/ orl i m i t ed r emand, ” s eeki ng i n par ta det erm i nat i on of w hetherthi s C our tr et ai ned j ur i s di ct i on over t hatappea l i n l i ghtof hi s fi nal m ot i on forr econs i der at i on. T hatas pectof the mot i on w as r efe r r ed t o us bya mot i ons panel pur s uantt o 3r d C i r . I O P 10. 3. 5, and w e now denyi tas unnece s s aryi n l i ghtof the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of K ey s ’ s fi nal m ot i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overt he D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s concl us i ons of l aw and r evi ew i t s fac tual concl us i ons forcl earerr or . See St r anaha n G earC o. v. N L I ndus . , I nc. , 800 F. 2d 53, 56 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . W e r evi ew t he deni al of K ey s ’ s m ot i ons forr econs i der at i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. See M ax’ s Seafood C af é v . Q u interos, 17 6 F . 3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). 4 t he dee d convey i ng t he pr oper t yt o hi s w i fe. B yor derent er ed M ar ch 13, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts um m ar i l ydeni ed the mot i on as “fr i vol ous . ” K ey s t hen fi l ed a thi r d m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, t hi s t i m e att achi ng a M ar ch 7, 2007 B ur eau of Pr i s ons r epor tl i s t i ng hi s r es i dence as 6225 C al l ow hi l l St r eetand ar gui ng t hatt he B ur eau ha d “corr ect ed the e rro r” in its re c o rd s. B yo rd e r e n ter e d N o v e m b e r 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , the D istric t C o u rt su m m a rily deni ed thatm ot i on as w el l . C . A . N o. 07- 4573 i s K ey s ’ s appea l fr om t hator der . B yor der i ssued F ebruary13 , 20 08 , w e con sol i dated K ey s’ s tw o ap peals for al l pu rposes. 1 II. O n a p p e a l, th e D O J (a lm o st b u t n o t q u ite c o n c e d in g th e iss u e o f v e n u e ) jo in s w ith K ey s i n r eques t i ng t hatw e vac at e the deni al of hi s pet i t i on and r emand forfur t her pr ocee di ngs . W e w i l l do s o beca us e w e bel i eve thatthe D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n di s m i s s i ng5

t hi s act i on on t he bas i s of i m pr opervenue w i t houts peci fi cal l yr es ol vi ng t he i s s ue of w hetherK ey s r es i ded i n Phi l adel phi a pr i ort o hi s i ncar cer at i on. U nder28 U . S. C . § 1391( e) ( 3) , venue i n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a w as p r o p e ri f K e ys r e s i d e d i n P h i l a d e l p h i a a tt h e t i m e h e f i l e d t h e a c t i o n . A tt h a tt i m e , K e ys w as im p ri so n ed w ith in the M idd le D istri ct of P en n sy lvan ia. P ri so n ers, ho w ev er, gener al l yar e dee m ed t o be r es i dent s , notof thei rpl ace of i ncar cer at i on, butof thei rpl ace of dom i ci l e i m m edi at el ybefor e thei ri ncar cer at i on. See El l i ngbur g v. C onnet t , 457 F. 2d 240, 241 ( 5t h C i r . 1971) ; 14D C har l es A . W r i ght , A r t hurR . M i l l er , M aryK . K ane, F ed era l Pra cti ce an d P roc ed u re § 3 8 0 5 (3d ed . 2 0 0 1 ). K ey s’s resp o n se to the D O J’s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , i nar t ful t hough i tw as , s houl d have putt he D i s t r i ctC our ton not i ce that K e y s ’s p re -i n c a rc e ra tio n re s id e n c e in P h ila d e lp h ia w a s a c o n te s te d f a c tu a l is s u e . T h e D istri ct C o u rt , h o w ev er, ne v er a d d resse d that issue . N o r did the D istri ct C o u rt addr es s anyof the s uppor t i ng evi dence t hatK ey s pr oduced w i t h hi s m ot i ons for r econs i der at i on. A s t he D O J now conce des , t hatevi dence appea r s pot ent i al l ys uffi ci ent t o s how t hatK ey s r es i ded i n Phi l adel phi a att he r el evantt i m e. T hus , w e conc l ude thatt he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n di s m i s s i ng t hi s act i on fori m pr opervenue a nd abus ed i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o r econs i dert hatrul i ng. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l vaca t e the J anuary17, 2007, February14, 2007, and N ovember20, 2007 or der s underr evi ew and r emand. T he D O J r eques t s t hatw e di r ectt he D i s t r i ctC our ton r emand t o t r ans fert hi s act i on to th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. T h e D O J a rg u e s th a t, w h e th e r v e n u e is p ro p e r in6

t he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ornot , s uch a tr ans ferw oul d be “i n t he i nt er es tof j us t i ce” beca us e i tw oul d obvi at e the nee d forfur t herl i t i gat i on on t he i s s ue of ve nue, t he re lev a n t ev e n ts o c c u rre d in th e M id d le D istric t, an d th e n e c e ss a ryw itn e ss e s a re lik e lyto be found ther e. See 28 U . S. C . §§ 1404( a) , 1406( a) . W e agr ee. A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt is d ire c ted to tra n sf e r th is a c tio n to th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia, w h ich in tu rn is d ire c ted to c o n sid e r th e n o n -v e n u e a rg u m e n ts r ai s ed i n t he D O J ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s and ther eaf t ert o conducts uch furt herpr ocee di ngs a s m a y b e n e c e s s a r y.